To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Comparison of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
August 2013

Comparison of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon

Vol: 2| Issue: 7| Number:127| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Prospective randomised comparison of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon

Int Orthop; 2011; 35(11): 1663:1670

Contributing Authors:
Philip Kasten Christoph Keil Thomas Grieser Patric Raiss Nikolaus Streich Markus Loew

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

OE EXCLUSIVE

Dr. Kasten on arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair

Synopsis

34 patients with supraspinatus tendon ruptures were randomized to receive either arthroscopic double row repair with resorbable anchors or the mini-open technique with transosseous repair. The results of the study indicated that patients who were treated arthroscopically needed fewer NSAIDs in week 1; however, the patients who were treated with the mini-open technique displayed significantly lower...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue